Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
Uber doesn't work like that.
You pay $10 to Uber for taking you from A to B. $8.50 of that goes to the driver, $1.50 goes to Uber. If a driver is sitting waiting for a ride, he's not getting paid by Uber.
This isn't Uber buying the time of a bunch of people, and then selling them out, it is simply a driver-customer matching system.
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.
Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.
But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.
I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.
To be fair to the Lib Dems, it was not a bad strategy. It paid handsomely in the European and local elections. They were unlucky to fall just short in a string of Conservative-held seats. They were obviously writing off their traditional strongholds, in the West Country, in the hope of winning prizes in the affluent Home Counties, and M3 and M4 corridors. The problem is there are no prizes for finishing a close second.
Well I suppose they are (potentially) well placed for next time as the challenger in many more seats than before. Their core problem (imo) is what has been thrashed around on this thread. What are the LDs about? Their identity. What is the point of them?
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
It's not PHE. It's Hancock pushing through a rubbish contract with Deloitte that didn't oblige them to provide the data.
A private sector/outsourcing/contract failure.
I think that's right - it's not PHE England.
Testing, and track and tracing, is unravelling to be a complete mess, I suspect. Lots of private sector contracts have been given out, including to old favourites like Deloitte, Serco and G4S, and it doesn't look well coordinated. For weeks now the DHSC have been unable to tell us how many people have been tested - this number looks permanently unavailable, rather than temporarily. As Starmer pointed out today, only a relatively small proportion of those testing positive are having their contacts traced. Despite what Johnson says, I don't believe that timely Pillar 4 data has been given to local authorities - it's obviously not just Leicester. And of course there's the mystery of the disappearing app.
I really don't think anybody has much of a clue what's going on with these myriad sources of data. I've spent some time this afternoon trying to find out, and it's like wading through treacle.
The net result is: 1) we don't really know how many are infected, and 2) local public health authorities, best placed to sort things out, don't have the information we need.
Add to that 176 reported deaths today, up from yesterday. Yes, I know most of these were from ages ago - but it does look as if we are much slower than the rest of Europe at getting a grip on the virus.
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.
How about non whites?
This exact thought occurred to me as I was writing that. It could be that having "non" in it gives a negative feel. But I don't know.
Well how about reversing it? Duskies and non-duskies? The negative is then on the whites.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
Uber doesn't work like that.
You pay $10 to Uber for taking you from A to B. $8.50 of that goes to the driver, $1.50 goes to Uber. If a driver is sitting waiting for a ride, he's not getting paid by Uber.
This isn't Uber buying the time of a bunch of people, and then selling them out, it is simply a driver-customer matching system.
They are not paying him but he is incurring costs. If he is to be available for the ride he needs to cover those costs. The busier he is the less of a problem that is. If its a big problem then working for Uber is not a viable way of earning a living.
In other news, the penny is dropping that Boris will swat aside demands for IndyRef2 whatever happens in May. Nicola has ruled out an illegal referendum so will be interesting to see where this goes. I believe Pete Wishart used to drum for Runrig.
Considering it would give him an even bigger majority in parliament, the SNP threatening to do a Sinn Fein would make Boris less likely to agree to indyref2, to be honest.
When Sinn Fein set up the Dail in 1918 it was after winning ~75% of the vote (the calculation complicated by the number of unopposed candidates) on an abstentionist platform.
If the SNP do the same on a weaker/absent mandate then I think the only thing it achieves is the resurrection of Scottish Labour. They can't stand up for Scotland if they don't turn up to vote against the Tories in Westminster.
Orkney and Shetland ; Ynys Mon; Na h-Eileanan an Iar ; Isle of Wight and Argyll & Bute ?
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross rather than IoW I would guess
No, it's now Orkney & Shetland, Ynys Mon, Na h-Eileanan an Iar and two under-sized seats on the Isle of Wight (as per the original proposals from before the last election, IoW is far too large for a single seat and it wasn't considered desirable to create a cross-Solent constituency to correct the problem.)
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof) 2. Sport (regional subsets thereof) 3. Weather (regional subsets thereof) 4. Comedy 5. Drama 6. Documentaries 7. Natural History 8. Children's programmes 9. Radio (subsets thereof) 10. Politics 11. Films 12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
Netflix is £5.99 but then how many of your categories do you think it covers? You seem to be implying it only covers one for some reason.
Thats without considering the fact it covers many of those categories an order of magnitude better than the BBC does, because that's a very subjective debate but you seem to be trying to argue different categories matter without saying which categories justify the BBC charging nearly three times the price.
I didn't say Netflix only covers one. I said that the BBC covers more.
Of the categories I listed above, would you subscribe to any from the BBC?
Netflix doesn't charge per category though, it charges £5.99 in total for all categories - and it covers the majority of your categories.
I'm not sure what the minority of categories the BBC offers that Netflix doesn't that justifies trebling its price.
Have I missed something? Where is the national, international and regional news on Netflix? Or weather? Or coverage of Parliament? Or...
Plus as asked before - is there anything on the BBC list you would pay for?
When your justification for the TV licence is reduced to spluttering "but... but... what about the coverage of parliament" - which is literally just pointing a camera at boring people talking in parliament - then you know your argument is in trouble.
I don't have an argument. As I said, I am ambivalent about the BBC licence fee. But in order to compare like for like you need to split it up into its component parts and services and assign a subscription fee to each and see what the take up is.
Plus as you are posting on here I am pretty sure you would pay £14.99 for BBC Parliament alone.
Your idea of splitting it up is quite good as a practical exercise.
I guess I might pay for News, Weather and Parliament. And one offs that I like, such as Masterchef and Springwatch.
I would pay maybe £3 a month for the first three together (a small sum, because I can obtain these free elsewhere). And maybe £10 per season of the other two. So my yearly payment to *BBC Inc* would be £56 not £157
Fair enough. It would be interesting to see what the broad British public would do. Perhaps those more tech savvy (everyone on here) would pay less for things they knew they could access elsewhere, while those less tech savvy might be happy for the BBC to act as aggregator.
The BBC could change into the British DW ... a German 'soft power' exercise I think, like the World Service was when the FO funded it. Anyway you appear to get a channel of good TV programmes, in English, accessible even if you live in say Canada or New Zealand
I don't know how much the average person would be prepared to pay for the BBC if it - unchanged from now - became an opt in subscription service. Myself, it would be around £25 per month. So I'm miles ahead of the game with the licence fee.
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
It's not PHE. It's Hancock pushing through a rubbish contract with Deloitte that didn't oblige them to provide the data.
A private sector/outsourcing/contract failure.
I think that's right - it's not PHE England.
Testing, and track and tracing, is unravelling to be a complete mess, I suspect. Lots of private sector contracts have been given out, including to old favourites like Deloitte, Serco and G4S, and it doesn't look well coordinated. For weeks now the DHSC have been unable to tell us how many people have been tested - this number looks permanently unavailable, rather than temporarily. As Starmer pointed out today, only a relatively small proportion of those testing positive are having their contacts traced. Despite what Johnson says, I don't believe that timely Pillar 4 data has been given to local authorities - it's obviously not just Leicester. And of course there's the mystery of the disappearing app.
I really don't think anybody has much of a clue what's going on with these myriad sources of data. I've spent some time this afternoon trying to find out, and it's like wading through treacle.
The net result is: 1) we don't really know how many are infected, and 2) local public health authorities, best placed to sort things out, don't have the information we need.
Add to that 176 reported deaths today, up from yesterday. Yes, I know most of these were from ages ago - but it does look as if we are much slower than the rest of Europe at getting a grip on the virus.
This is my impression too. Possibly better in Scotland, but there may be unknowns lurking there too.
The political problem for Johnson's government is a perception that they are taking their eye off the virus ball because it's a disagreeable topic for them and they would rather move onto other things. Starmer was quite effective on this today, I think.
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.
Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.
But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.
I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.
To be fair to the Lib Dems, it was not a bad strategy. It paid handsomely in the European and local elections. They were unlucky to fall just short in a string of Conservative-held seats. They were obviously writing off their traditional strongholds, in the West Country, in the hope of winning prizes in the affluent Home Counties, and M3 and M4 corridors. The problem is there are no prizes for finishing a close second.
Well I suppose they are (potentially) well placed for next time as the challenger in many more seats than before. Their core problem (imo) is what has been thrashed around on this thread. What are the LDs about? Their identity. What is the point of them?
If they choose to break leftwards then they simply become a faux Labour Party in areas where the genuine article isn't competitive.
They'd arguably be much better off becoming a continuity Cameroon party for socially liberal but economically dry well-to-do voters in Southern England, but that's not where the membership appears to want to go.
Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.
Er no. Most people who have had it never had a test (back in March, April and May). Estimated to be more like 5% have had it (with big ranges in different locations. London maybe 20%, Wiltshire 1%?)
We know 313k people have had it because we have +ve tests. The Italian data suggests that roughly 40% of people who have it are asymptomatic. What we don't know is how many people had it, had symptoms but those symptoms were not sufficiently serious to end up needing medical attention (and hence a test). The 40% is going to be 40% of the first and third categories so again the key is how many people were ill but not seriously ill. We don't know.
One way of guessing this might be the deaths figure, currently 44k. If the death rate is 1% then that would indicate 4.4m have had it, something like 7%. But if the death rate is 2% then only 3.5% are likely to have had it. Again we really don't seem to know.
The fact that the Italians have found the percentage that is asymptomatic is quite low suggests we are a long way from her immunity however you cut it. Its not good news.
Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.
Er no. Most people who have had it never had a test (back in March, April and May). Estimated to be more like 5% have had it (with big ranges in different locations. London maybe 20%, Wiltshire 1%?)
best way is to use globally validated age specific infection mortality rates (these are disease specific and data from Germany can be read across to UK). Then use the UK age specific deaths data. Put in a bit of a lag for time series stuff although getting less needed now we are out the end of the it. I think you end up with over 15 M UK infections to date, haven't done this properly though. Which tallies with immunological dark matter of ~60%. so we are home and hosed. or maybe not.
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.
How about non whites?
This exact thought occurred to me as I was writing that. It could be that having "non" in it gives a negative feel. But I don't know.
Well how about reversing it? Duskies and non-duskies? The negative is then on the whites.
In other news, the penny is dropping that Boris will swat aside demands for IndyRef2 whatever happens in May. Nicola has ruled out an illegal referendum so will be interesting to see where this goes. I believe Pete Wishart used to drum for Runrig.
Considering it would give him an even bigger majority in parliament, the SNP threatening to do a Sinn Fein would make Boris less likely to agree to indyref2, to be honest.
When Sinn Fein set up the Dail in 1918 it was after winning ~75% of the vote (the calculation complicated by the number of unopposed candidates) on an abstentionist platform.
If the SNP do the same on a weaker/absent mandate then I think the only thing it achieves is the resurrection of Scottish Labour. They can't stand up for Scotland if they don't turn up to vote against the Tories in Westminster.
I can't believe they would be so foolhardy.
Pete Wishart is not the sharpest blade in the drawer. But I do think that there is growing frustration in the Nat camp that they are missing their opportunity, ie, Boris/Brexit, and that as time goes by the SNP will it more difficult to confound political gravity.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
Uber doesn't work like that.
You pay $10 to Uber for taking you from A to B. $8.50 of that goes to the driver, $1.50 goes to Uber. If a driver is sitting waiting for a ride, he's not getting paid by Uber.
This isn't Uber buying the time of a bunch of people, and then selling them out, it is simply a driver-customer matching system.
More like you take a ride that cost £8.50 then Uber renumerates the driver as if he drove a £11 trip.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
Sorry for not reply; been gardening.
In answer to your question - I'm afraid so. Card carrying member in the various incarnations for 50 plus years.
I guess I could best be described as an Orange Booker. I am strongly anti-authoritarianism, jobs worth and political correctness so you could also say I also come from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the party.
I am socially very liberal. I have also been called a lefty by some of our more conservative Conservatives on here, although I suspect my economic views are actually to the right of many of them.
We have often reacted to threads in exactly the same manner on here in the past and 'liked' each others posts quite a few times, so I suspect we have views quite a bit in common.
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
It's not PHE. It's Hancock pushing through a rubbish contract with Deloitte that didn't oblige them to provide the data.
A private sector/outsourcing/contract failure.
I think that's right - it's not PHE England.
Testing, and track and tracing, is unravelling to be a complete mess, I suspect. Lots of private sector contracts have been given out, including to old favourites like Deloitte, Serco and G4S, and it doesn't look well coordinated. For weeks now the DHSC have been unable to tell us how many people have been tested - this number looks permanently unavailable, rather than temporarily. As Starmer pointed out today, only a relatively small proportion of those testing positive are having their contacts traced. Despite what Johnson says, I don't believe that timely Pillar 4 data has been given to local authorities - it's obviously not just Leicester. And of course there's the mystery of the disappearing app.
I really don't think anybody has much of a clue what's going on with these myriad sources of data. I've spent some time this afternoon trying to find out, and it's like wading through treacle.
The net result is: 1) we don't really know how many are infected, and 2) local public health authorities, best placed to sort things out, don't have the information we need.
Add to that 176 reported deaths today, up from yesterday. Yes, I know most of these were from ages ago - but it does look as if we are much slower than the rest of Europe at getting a grip on the virus.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
I do think that liberals are over-represented on here, but having said that liberalism is a popular creed generally. 30% of electorate maybe? 45% conservative, 20% collectivist, 5% libertarian. Something like that?
I haven't seen that "conservative" defined yet - but your other numbers don't immediately strike me as badly off the mark.
Well ... I`ve had a go. But not happy with it. I find conservatism tricky to pin down:
Conservatives value traditions and family life and are patriotic. They like strong leaders who act in, and battle for, the national interest. They are monarchists. Conservatives are often religious - but even those who are not tend to prescribe a particular way of living and are often disapproving of others who deviate from this. They do not welcome diversity or eccentricity. They are not idealists and hold a lesser view of human nature compared to other ideologies.
Conservatives prioritise strong defence and policing. This is consistent with their wish to perpetuate the status quo. Generally, conservatives want to keep things as they are, because the way things are is the way things should be because this represents tried-and-trusted methods - and change costs money - a priority of habit over sudden change, if you like. Conservatives prioritise efficiency and hold respect for taxpayer funds.
It follows from all this that conservatives favour a small state and low taxation. Generally, conservatives argue that money is best left in the pockets of families, for them to maximise their own utility, rather than with the state. A mild to strong right wing position.
Many, but not all, conservatives disapprove of alternative lifestyles. They may not admit this. Generally they believe that it is normal, and therefore correct, for individuals to be heterosexual, to marry, have 2.4 children and to bring those children up in the way that they themselves were brought up.
Conservatives disapprove of dissent and protest. People should accept things as they are, including their station in life. Who said life is fair? Some conservatives believe in rank and status and class, thinking that a hierarchy of authority is most conducive to national well-being. Conservatives believe in duty.
Thank you. You are quite good at this stuff. Yep, that evokes well what I think of as Middle England. Which is conservative. And so I think I agree that this - very sadly - is the biggest demographic we have.
Incredible that 2017 Corbyn result. Will probably look more and more incredible as it fades to grey.
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
It's not PHE. It's Hancock pushing through a rubbish contract with Deloitte that didn't oblige them to provide the data.
A private sector/outsourcing/contract failure.
I think that's right - it's not PHE England.
Testing, and track and tracing, is unravelling to be a complete mess, I suspect. Lots of private sector contracts have been given out, including to old favourites like Deloitte, Serco and G4S, and it doesn't look well coordinated. For weeks now the DHSC have been unable to tell us how many people have been tested - this number looks permanently unavailable, rather than temporarily. As Starmer pointed out today, only a relatively small proportion of those testing positive are having their contacts traced. Despite what Johnson says, I don't believe that timely Pillar 4 data has been given to local authorities - it's obviously not just Leicester. And of course there's the mystery of the disappearing app.
I really don't think anybody has much of a clue what's going on with these myriad sources of data. I've spent some time this afternoon trying to find out, and it's like wading through treacle.
The net result is: 1) we don't really know how many are infected, and 2) local public health authorities, best placed to sort things out, don't have the information we need.
Add to that 176 reported deaths today, up from yesterday. Yes, I know most of these were from ages ago - but it does look as if we are much slower than the rest of Europe at getting a grip on the virus.
This is my impression too. Possibly better in Scotland, but there may be unknowns lurking there too.
The political problem for Johnson's government is a perception that they are taking their eye off the virus ball because it's a disagreeable topic for them and they would rather move onto other things. Starmer was quite effective on this today, I think.
Certainly a dfifferent approach in Scotland - based on health professionals and local authority public health staff, and focussed more on traditional phoning around, it would seem, than vapourware in the form of apps and having private companies do it in call centres [edit]. But I am wary about being categorical about this as I can't find any up to date assessment.
However, it may be significant that Professor Sridhar reckons this is one of the three main reasons Scotland is doing bette rthan England.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
Uber doesn't work like that.
You pay $10 to Uber for taking you from A to B. $8.50 of that goes to the driver, $1.50 goes to Uber. If a driver is sitting waiting for a ride, he's not getting paid by Uber.
This isn't Uber buying the time of a bunch of people, and then selling them out, it is simply a driver-customer matching system.
More like you take a ride that cost £8.50 then Uber renumerates the driver as if he drove a £11 trip.
That's not true.
Uber pays bonuses to drivers who do certain things (such as availability, etc.) but the core of the business is a linkage between revenue from a customer and to a driver, with Uber taking a cut.
In other news, the penny is dropping that Boris will swat aside demands for IndyRef2 whatever happens in May. Nicola has ruled out an illegal referendum so will be interesting to see where this goes. I believe Pete Wishart used to drum for Runrig.
Considering it would give him an even bigger majority in parliament, the SNP threatening to do a Sinn Fein would make Boris less likely to agree to indyref2, to be honest.
When Sinn Fein set up the Dail in 1918 it was after winning ~75% of the vote (the calculation complicated by the number of unopposed candidates) on an abstentionist platform.
If the SNP do the same on a weaker/absent mandate then I think the only thing it achieves is the resurrection of Scottish Labour. They can't stand up for Scotland if they don't turn up to vote against the Tories in Westminster.
I can't believe they would be so foolhardy.
The Union's bust if it gets to that point. What Scottish Labour does would be an irrelevance. People are playing with fire here. Johnson certainly is. Sturgeon not so much but there are people in her party egging her on, including Wishart.
Orkney and Shetland ; Ynys Mon; Na h-Eileanan an Iar ; Isle of Wight and Argyll & Bute ?
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross rather than IoW I would guess
No, it's now Orkney & Shetland, Ynys Mon, Na h-Eileanan an Iar and two under-sized seats on the Isle of Wight (as per the original proposals from before the last election, IoW is far too large for a single seat and it wasn't considered desirable to create a cross-Solent constituency to correct the problem.)
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
EDIT: The A is Asian, isn't it?
I thought it stood for Black and Minority Ethnic
Surprised that somebody with your level of interest in this topic - high - would not be all over this one.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.
No, symptomatic but mild cases would form the larger part of the undiagnosed case iceberg in the UK.
So, on the back of the Italian data, what multiple do we apply to them?
The abstract doesn't really address that though, iirc, I think there are other papers from the Vo study that did split mild and severe. I merely wished to point out that asymptomatic was not the only substantial category of patient to sit below the waterline and so you couldn't interpret the data in the way you were doing.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
From Flanner's numbers it looks like a profitable business is in there.
If you consider R&D and Sales&Marketing to be an investment in accruing growth for the future (like Amazon had for many years) then excluding R&D and Sales&Marketing they've made a $1.3 billion net profit. And that's without trimming the admin etc associated with those departments.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
I do think that liberals are over-represented on here, but having said that liberalism is a popular creed generally. 30% of electorate maybe? 45% conservative, 20% collectivist, 5% libertarian. Something like that?
I haven't seen that "conservative" defined yet - but your other numbers don't immediately strike me as badly off the mark.
Well ... I`ve had a go. But not happy with it. I find conservatism tricky to pin down:
Conservatives value traditions and family life and are patriotic. They like strong leaders who act in, and battle for, the national interest. They are monarchists. Conservatives are often religious - but even those who are not tend to prescribe a particular way of living and are often disapproving of others who deviate from this. They do not welcome diversity or eccentricity. They are not idealists and hold a lesser view of human nature compared to other ideologies.
Conservatives prioritise strong defence and policing. This is consistent with their wish to perpetuate the status quo. Generally, conservatives want to keep things as they are, because the way things are is the way things should be because this represents tried-and-trusted methods - and change costs money - a priority of habit over sudden change, if you like. Conservatives prioritise efficiency and hold respect for taxpayer funds.
It follows from all this that conservatives favour a small state and low taxation. Generally, conservatives argue that money is best left in the pockets of families, for them to maximise their own utility, rather than with the state. A mild to strong right wing position.
Many, but not all, conservatives disapprove of alternative lifestyles. They may not admit this. Generally they believe that it is normal, and therefore correct, for individuals to be heterosexual, to marry, have 2.4 children and to bring those children up in the way that they themselves were brought up.
Conservatives disapprove of dissent and protest. People should accept things as they are, including their station in life. Who said life is fair? Some conservatives believe in rank and status and class, thinking that a hierarchy of authority is most conducive to national well-being. Conservatives believe in duty.
Yes, I'm not sure that quite captures it, either. While much of that is arguably fair, it doesn't seem capture the innovators (for good or ill) who fall within the Conservative tradition.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
Uber doesn't work like that.
You pay $10 to Uber for taking you from A to B. $8.50 of that goes to the driver, $1.50 goes to Uber. If a driver is sitting waiting for a ride, he's not getting paid by Uber.
This isn't Uber buying the time of a bunch of people, and then selling them out, it is simply a driver-customer matching system.
They are not paying him but he is incurring costs. If he is to be available for the ride he needs to cover those costs. The busier he is the less of a problem that is. If its a big problem then working for Uber is not a viable way of earning a living.
That's right. And then he drops off. Which means that there is slightly less competition among drivers, and the remaining drivers earn slightly more. It's a very efficient system for drivers earning almost exactly minimum wage.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
Two other factors have contributed to Scotland’s relative success, says Sridhar. The first is clear messaging. On 10 May, the UK government changed its “stay at home” slogan to “stay alert”, but Scotland stuck to the original line. It has since switched to “stay safe”.
Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech shows positive results https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/01/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-shows-positive-results/ ...The study randomly assigned 45 patients to get one of three doses of the vaccine or placebo. Twelve received a 10-microgram dose, 12 a 30-microgram dose, 12 a 100-microgram dose, and nine a placebo. The 100-microgram dose caused fevers in half of patients; a second dose was not given at that level.
Following a second injection three weeks later of the other doses, 8.3% of the participants in the 10-microgram group and 75% of those in the 30-microgram group developed fevers. More than 50% of the patients who received one of those doses reported some kind of adverse event, including fever and sleep disturbances. None of these side effects was deemed serious, meaning they did not result in hospitalization or disability and were not life-threatening....
Certainly evokes an immune response. The lowest dose with follow up booster shot elicited a stronger antibody response than the highest dose.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
Sorry for not reply; been gardening.
In answer to your question - I'm afraid so. Card carrying member in the various incarnations for 50 plus years.
I guess I could best be described as an Orange Booker. I am strongly anti-authoritarianism, jobs worth and political correctness so you could also say I also come from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the party.
I am socially very liberal. I have also been called a lefty by some of our more conservative Conservatives on here, although I suspect my economic views are actually to the right of many of them.
We have often reacted to threads in exactly the same manner on here in the past and 'liked' each others posts quite a few times, so I suspect we have views quite a bit in common.
And me quite a lefty. That's interesting isn't it. There must be some Orange Book in me and some Socialist in you. All good!
But I am woke and that's a fact. Not "woke" - woke.
Is it related to contract tracing and intensive followup testing around the factory outbreaks ?
Yes - once the outbreak was identified they piled on Pillar 2 testing in and around Leicester. Identifying and testing contacts, all the workers in a factory etc. Hence the question how much they were finding an outbreak vs finding more mild/asymptomatic cases.
Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech shows positive results https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/01/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-shows-positive-results/ ...The study randomly assigned 45 patients to get one of three doses of the vaccine or placebo. Twelve received a 10-microgram dose, 12 a 30-microgram dose, 12 a 100-microgram dose, and nine a placebo. The 100-microgram dose caused fevers in half of patients; a second dose was not given at that level.
Following a second injection three weeks later of the other doses, 8.3% of the participants in the 10-microgram group and 75% of those in the 30-microgram group developed fevers. More than 50% of the patients who received one of those doses reported some kind of adverse event, including fever and sleep disturbances. None of these side effects was deemed serious, meaning they did not result in hospitalization or disability and were not life-threatening....
Certainly evokes an immune response. The lowest dose with follow up booster shot elicited a stronger antibody response than the highest dose.
Loos a sensibly designed program, and deliberately unhyped: ...Our study had several limitations. While we used convalescent sera as a comparator, the kind of immunity (T cells versus B cells or both) and level of immunity needed to protect from COVID- 19 are unknown. Further, this analysis of available data did not assess immune responses or safety beyond 2 weeks after the second dose of vaccine. Both are important to inform the public health use of this vaccine. Follow-up will continue for all participants and will include collection of serious adverse events for 6 months, and COVID-19 infection and multiple additional immunogenicity measurements through up to two years. While our population of healthy adults 55 years of age and younger is appropriate for a Phase 1/2 study, it does not accurately reflect the population at highest risk for COVID-19. Adults 65 years of age and over have already been enrolled in this study and results will be reported as they become available. Later phases of this study will prioritize enrollment of more diverse populations, including those with chronic underlying health conditions and from racial/ethnic groups adversely affected by COVID-19....
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.
Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.
But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.
I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.
To be fair to the Lib Dems, it was not a bad strategy. It paid handsomely in the European and local elections. They were unlucky to fall just short in a string of Conservative-held seats. They were obviously writing off their traditional strongholds, in the West Country, in the hope of winning prizes in the affluent Home Counties, and M3 and M4 corridors. The problem is there are no prizes for finishing a close second.
Well I suppose they are (potentially) well placed for next time as the challenger in many more seats than before. Their core problem (imo) is what has been thrashed around on this thread. What are the LDs about? Their identity. What is the point of them?
If they choose to break leftwards then they simply become a faux Labour Party in areas where the genuine article isn't competitive.
They'd arguably be much better off becoming a continuity Cameroon party for socially liberal but economically dry well-to-do voters in Southern England, but that's not where the membership appears to want to go.
You're probably right. But at the end of the day a political party does belong to its members.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
Two other factors have contributed to Scotland’s relative success, says Sridhar. The first is clear messaging. On 10 May, the UK government changed its “stay at home” slogan to “stay alert”, but Scotland stuck to the original line. It has since switched to “stay safe”.
Why is "safe" better than "alert"?
"Stay safe" is a greeting. People sign emails with it and say it to one another after they meet on the streets.
I think Sturgeon's / SG's repeated "the virus has not gone away" soundbite is effective, albeit dreary.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
Two other factors have contributed to Scotland’s relative success, says Sridhar. The first is clear messaging. On 10 May, the UK government changed its “stay at home” slogan to “stay alert”, but Scotland stuck to the original line. It has since switched to “stay safe”.
Why is "safe" better than "alert"?
I don't know, not in detail. But I have an instant gut impression from such management training as I had, now you ask. 'Stay alert' refers merely to an activity whereas 'stay safe' is the desired result (and encompasses all the óther needful activities, which might not require staying alert so much ... such as staying at home!). Th Scottish slogan is therefore specific, measurable, something beginning with a which I forget, relevant and targeted ...!
Edit@ missing word was I think 'achievable' - as one hopes it is.
Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.
Most people who had it had it before testing was widely available.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
Two other factors have contributed to Scotland’s relative success, says Sridhar. The first is clear messaging. On 10 May, the UK government changed its “stay at home” slogan to “stay alert”, but Scotland stuck to the original line. It has since switched to “stay safe”.
Why is "safe" better than "alert"?
I don't know, not in detail. But I have an instant gut impression from such management training as I had, now you ask. 'Stay alert' refers merely to an activity whereas 'stay safe' is the desired result (and encompasses all the óther needful activities, which might not require staying alert so much ... such as staying at home!). Th Scottish slogan is therefore specific, measurable, something beginning with a which I forget, relevant and targeted ...!
Edit@ missing word was I think 'achievable' - as one hopes it is.
SMART! Like you, I have forgotten the last three...
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
I strongly suspect that the biggest factor is that effectively Scotland had an earlier lockdown than some parts of the rest of the UK. Not by date, but by state of the outbreak. Back in March it seemed that a London lock down might happen, as that was the obvious focus at the time. We locked down based primarily on what was happening in London. So for those further behind the curve such as Scotland, and the SW of England say, our effective lockdown date was earlier (in the outbreak). If that makes any sense, This is not to say that by staying stricter, longer and perhaps better trust I government Scotland hasn't added to this, but I don't think the SW of England has more trust in the UK gov, or a 5 mile restriction, but you are hard pressed to find cases down here.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
I do think that liberals are over-represented on here, but having said that liberalism is a popular creed generally. 30% of electorate maybe? 45% conservative, 20% collectivist, 5% libertarian. Something like that?
I haven't seen that "conservative" defined yet - but your other numbers don't immediately strike me as badly off the mark.
Well ... I`ve had a go. But not happy with it. I find conservatism tricky to pin down:
Conservatives value traditions and family life and are patriotic. They like strong leaders who act in, and battle for, the national interest. They are monarchists. Conservatives are often religious - but even those who are not tend to prescribe a particular way of living and are often disapproving of others who deviate from this. They do not welcome diversity or eccentricity. They are not idealists and hold a lesser view of human nature compared to other ideologies.
Conservatives prioritise strong defence and policing. This is consistent with their wish to perpetuate the status quo. Generally, conservatives want to keep things as they are, because the way things are is the way things should be because this represents tried-and-trusted methods - and change costs money - a priority of habit over sudden change, if you like. Conservatives prioritise efficiency and hold respect for taxpayer funds.
It follows from all this that conservatives favour a small state and low taxation. Generally, conservatives argue that money is best left in the pockets of families, for them to maximise their own utility, rather than with the state. A mild to strong right wing position.
Many, but not all, conservatives disapprove of alternative lifestyles. They may not admit this. Generally they believe that it is normal, and therefore correct, for individuals to be heterosexual, to marry, have 2.4 children and to bring those children up in the way that they themselves were brought up.
Conservatives disapprove of dissent and protest. People should accept things as they are, including their station in life. Who said life is fair? Some conservatives believe in rank and status and class, thinking that a hierarchy of authority is most conducive to national well-being. Conservatives believe in duty.
Yes, I'm not sure that quite captures it, either. While much of that is arguably fair, it doesn't seem capture the innovators (for good or ill) who fall within the Conservative tradition.
Though perhaps they are not conservatives ?
Yes, I am not sure this captures Thatcher, for instance. She was much more revolutionary than this.
Clause 7 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill is clear on the mathematical impact of including Ynys Môn as a protected constituency.
The electorate for Wales excludes Ynys Môn (like England excludes the Isle of Wight) and then the number of Welsh seats is calculated per the 2011 amendment to the 1986 Act using the Sainte-Laguë divisor 1/(2x+1).
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
I strongly suspect that the biggest factor is that effectively Scotland had an earlier lockdown than some parts of the rest of the UK. Not by date, but by state of the outbreak. Back in March it seemed that a London lock down might happen, as that was the obvious focus at the time. We locked down based primarily on what was happening in London. So for those further behind the curve such as Scotland, and the SW of England say, our effective lockdown date was earlier (in the outbreak). If that makes any sense, This is not to say that by staying stricter, longer and perhaps better trust I government Scotland hasn't added to this, but I don't think the SW of England has more trust in the UK gov, or a 5 mile restriction, but you are hard pressed to find cases down here.
The Prof makes a similar point (if reported only briefly) re timing.
However the comparison doesn't quite take into account different population densities, I think. I was wondering, does the SW include the Bristol/Bath/Clevedon/Avonmouth conurbation? On checking, it does, but that's equivalent population wise only to the eastern part of the Central Belt (basically Edinburgh and the resrt of Lothian). There's nothing in the SW to compare with Greater Glasgow (over a million people). So that's quite a big difference with the SW, even if one matches off Plymouth and Exeter and Taunton with say Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. So maybe the different policies did help.
In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?
The locations to me run approximately NW to SE the length of the country and represent, as much as anything else, a border between higher incidence west of the line, and lower incidence east of the line - the wavefront of high infection if you like. This gets squeezed a little at the north end of the line, where in some places higher infection rates have approached from either side and squeezed in towards the Pennines last.
I think if the counties were being reported by lower tier authorities this might provide even a few more data points, e.g. a jump from Southend over into Kent. As it stands you just see the unitaries, and though Asian populations are a common theme why would they be particularly represented in a late June wave? Eid is long past.
This clearly isn't a geographical issue.
I am told that multi-household extended families have still been mixing. It isn't just large single households.
Barnsley is definitely an exception though. Perhaps there's been a factory outbreak?
Not seen an outbreak in Barnsley, but has been high for a few weeks with the outward spread from Sheffield.
Calderdale is pretty Asian, nothing doing - yet. Swale and Ashford which I'm sure would be up there if districts were included - they've had problems all month. Southend on Sea?? Northants as a county featured at the top of the chart a couple of weeks ago bridging Bedford and Leicester.
No, this bears some resemblance to the Weston outbreak.
I'm not saying large multigenerational households are not a factor at all, but geographical creep of outbreaks happened in Italy and permeated the mountain provinces of Lombardy quite late in the outbreak.
I thought our initial seeding was much more widespread than Italy? Obviously it then spread quicker in some areas. This seems to be a very long tail rather than a new outbreak as such.
It could of course be working conditions too - as seems to be the case in Leicester.
Note that Kirklees encompasses quite a lot of Calderdale.
By the mid May, of the 190 or so reporting areas across GB, the top 70 or so in terms of infection rate were almost all contiguous. From London, the high infection stripe went west through Berkshire, Oxfordshire and up an M5 approach to Birmingham, up the M6 to the whole north west into Cumbria and into the North East, then up through the Borders into the central belt and terminating in Dundee. Hampshire, SE Wales and the beginnings of northward spread into Bedfordshire were all connected to this, and Sheffield was the only island from this. Every single reporting area north, south west and east of this had lower incidence.
There may have been 1300 introductions dotted everywhere, but the split in how those developed was obvious on a map and the potential for further outwards spread was always possible. I think it is as strong an explanation as any other.
Btw, Kirklees and Calderdale for these figures, based on home address are fully separate. For death numbers, which are initially collatefd by hospital.trust, yes, there is common reporting covering Calderdale and slightly over half of Kirklees (the other half reporting mainly into Mid Yorkshire).
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
Sorry for not reply; been gardening.
In answer to your question - I'm afraid so. Card carrying member in the various incarnations for 50 plus years.
I guess I could best be described as an Orange Booker. I am strongly anti-authoritarianism, jobs worth and political correctness so you could also say I also come from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the party.
I am socially very liberal. I have also been called a lefty by some of our more conservative Conservatives on here, although I suspect my economic views are actually to the right of many of them.
We have often reacted to threads in exactly the same manner on here in the past and 'liked' each others posts quite a few times, so I suspect we have views quite a bit in common.
And me quite a lefty. That's interesting isn't it. There must be some Orange Book in me and some Socialist in you. All good!
But I am woke and that's a fact. Not "woke" - woke.
Definitely not even a smidgen of socialism in me (although again some of our more conservative members here would disagree).
Stocky's description was spot on for me. As you say he is very good at these descriptions isn't he?
I'm trying to think of where we have agreed a lot and I think it has been analysing what we consider some of the flaws in some of the conservative posts on here.
There is also the difficulty in pin pointing liberalism on a straight line that goes from left to right. It doesn't sit on such a straight line. It is not in the middle. The middle is occupied by Social Democrats and they are not liberals (although I feel comfortable with them).
I think some of my views would be considered a long way to the left and some a long way to the right. For instance my views on prostitution, drugs, etc would be considered by conservatives as being way to the left, however I also think the conservatives often interfere far to much in the market place and in peoples lives putting them to the left of me.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
The number of deaths (from the ONS report yesterday) in the week ending 19th June was 49 in Scotland and 744 in England. That is definitely proportionately more deaths than in Scotland (by about 50%) but the daily reported numbers suggest a much more substantial discrepancy.
Given this, I wonder if the daily deaths being reported by the government are catching up with care home deaths from quite some time ago? The frustration is that the government does not break down non-hospital deaths by date so it's hard to be certain.
It all talks to poor communication of the underlying data. The ONS are great, but the daily stats are really very hard to interpret (and this is in addition to the Pillar I / II issues we've been discussing) and I do wonder if there is a massive catch-up effect in the daily reported figures that's really misleading and exaggerating the difference between Scotland and England, especially in terms of deaths.
Thinking about BBC a bit more while I was just out, I think @TOPPING 's original programming jibe at Netflix shows the real, real danger that the BBC is in for the long-term.
In the past the BBC has relied upon its incumbency and its history of original programming but its losing both of those, fast. My generation and younger generations are simply not that bothered by the BBC anymore and that isn't a "young are liberal, old are conservative" idea - it is simply we've grown up with choice and that is not going away.
People are growing up with more channels and used to streaming and YouTube and multi-channel TVs. The idea of simply having the BBC on and seeing whatever is on next is rapidly fading into history.
And then when it comes to content the BBC used to be famed for its content. Emphasis is used to be. The era of Monty Python etc ended a long time ago, now increasingly the most talked about TV is Netflix and that is only going to continue.
The problem is that the era of the BBC is dying. It can't compete on original programming, it can't compete on cost. People increasing simply don't care for it and fondness for it is dying away.
Change has to come - and the problem is like a 'bricks and mortar' store failing to see the threat Amazon provides to their existence, the longer the BBCs fans live in denial about this fact the weaker and weaker the BBC will be when it is finally dealt with.
Years ago when digital was rolling out had the BBC been made a subscription service it would have had near universal uptake. Now that's going to be technologically hard to achieve and it won't be. The longer this is ignored, the worse it is for the long-term future of the BBC.
V interesting thanks. No time to respond now but will try to pick it up again at a later thread.
Orkney and Shetland ; Ynys Mon; Na h-Eileanan an Iar ; Isle of Wight and Argyll & Bute ?
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross rather than IoW I would guess
The "mainland" Highlands and Islands constituencies are not protected, but there is a maximum area limit of 13,000 km2 which means they may have electorates significantly smaller than the quota.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.
Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.
But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.
I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.
To be fair to the Lib Dems, it was not a bad strategy. It paid handsomely in the European and local elections. They were unlucky to fall just short in a string of Conservative-held seats. They were obviously writing off their traditional strongholds, in the West Country, in the hope of winning prizes in the affluent Home Counties, and M3 and M4 corridors. The problem is there are no prizes for finishing a close second.
Well I suppose they are (potentially) well placed for next time as the challenger in many more seats than before. Their core problem (imo) is what has been thrashed around on this thread. What are the LDs about? Their identity. What is the point of them?
If they choose to break leftwards then they simply become a faux Labour Party in areas where the genuine article isn't competitive.
They'd arguably be much better off becoming a continuity Cameroon party for socially liberal but economically dry well-to-do voters in Southern England, but that's not where the membership appears to want to go.
You're probably right. But at the end of the day a political party does belong to its members.
Indeed. But Labour's members embarked upon the Corbyn adventure with 232 seats and just over 30% of the popular vote in the bank. The equivalent figures for the Liberal Democrats are 11 seats and 11.5%. They don't have a whole load of room to make further errors.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
The number of deaths (from the ONS report today) in the week ending 19th June was 49 in Scotland and 744 in England. That is definitely proportionately more deaths than in Scotland (by about 50%) but the daily reported numbers suggest a much more substantial discrepancy.
Given this, I wonder if the daily deaths being reported by the government are catching up with care home deaths from quite some time ago? The frustration is that the government does not break down non-hospital deaths by date so it's hard to be certain.
It all talks to poor communication of the underlying data. The ONS are great, but the daily stats are really very hard to interpret (and this is in addition to the Pillar I / II issues we've been discussing) and I do wonder if there is a massive catch-up effect in the daily reported figures that's really misleading and exaggerating the difference between Scotland and England, especially in terms of deaths.
I take it you do mean the "English"/UK government when you say 'government'. The reference to ONS rather than NRS pretty much means it can't be the Scottish government.
We did discuss on and off the phenomenon of the Scottosh excess deaths and reported covid deaths being almost exactly the same for months whereas there was a big discrepancy (in April/May, was it not?) in the English figures - about a quarter by eyeballing the graphs. So I suppose these presumably hidden covid deaths could be catching up from that far back. Is it possible it could take so long?
Westminster now has two reasons to send in the army to Scotland, one to seal the border and one to stop Joanna Cherry carrying out her section 30 less referendum.
With my arrival, there will be a new thread very soon - there always is.
The Economist/YouGov poll for the US Presidential election is one of the largest I've ever seen with 308 pages of crosstabs.
Page 130 is the one of most interest. The headline figure is Biden leading Trump 49-40. Among men Biden is ahead 45-44 and among women by 53-37.
Among White voters Trump leads 48-43 while Biden leads among black voters 75-9 and among Hispanic voters by 56-29.
In the NE Biden leads 59-30, in the West 52-35. In the South Trump leads 46-44 and in the Midwest Biden leads 47-45.
These look much more credible numbers than the USA Today/Suffolk poll of yesterday and for that reason they are much worse for Trump.
Trump won White voters (70% of the vote last time) 58-37 in 2016 so Biden has an 8% swing in that key group. To be fair to Trump, he is doing less badly against black voters and has achieved a small swing (3.5%) among Hispanic voters.
Trump won the Midwest 49-45 in 2016 so that's a 4% swing to Biden and in the South Trump's win was 52-44 so a 3% swing to Biden.
It's hard to see Biden not sweeping the battleground on these numbers. I doubt he'll win Texas or Iowa even on these numbers but everywhere else looks possible which would give Biden at least another 100 EC votes above Clinton which would be enough to win say 320-330 against Trump's 200-220 (roughly) so a comprehensive win if not perhaps the "landslide" some are predicting.
I've not seen the crosstabs for the other two polls released so far today but both are very similar to the Economist/YouGov numbers as far as the headline is concerned.
As far as I am aware, there are four protected constituencies - the two in Scotland, and two on the Isle of Wight. Ynys Môn has certainly not been protected up to now - the latest proposals were to merge it with Bangor.
Has this changed? If so when? It must have been recently.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
I strongly suspect that the biggest factor is that effectively Scotland had an earlier lockdown than some parts of the rest of the UK. Not by date, but by state of the outbreak. Back in March it seemed that a London lock down might happen, as that was the obvious focus at the time. We locked down based primarily on what was happening in London. So for those further behind the curve such as Scotland, and the SW of England say, our effective lockdown date was earlier (in the outbreak). If that makes any sense, This is not to say that by staying stricter, longer and perhaps better trust I government Scotland hasn't added to this, but I don't think the SW of England has more trust in the UK gov, or a 5 mile restriction, but you are hard pressed to find cases down here.
The Prof makes a similar point (if reported only briefly) re timing.
However the comparison doesn't quite take into account different population densities, I think. I was wondering, does the SW include the Bristol/Bath/Clevedon/Avonmouth conurbation? On checking, it does, but that's equivalent population wise only to the eastern part of the Central Belt (basically Edinburgh and the resrt of Lothian). There's nothing in the SW to compare with Greater Glasgow (over a million people). So that's quite a big difference with the SW, even if one matches off Plymouth and Exeter and Taunton with say Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. So maybe the different policies did help.
Northern Ireland is doing better than Scotland or SW England. eg No deaths today, no one in ICU, just one new case
"What on earth does the Government think it’s doing? What possible reason is there for reimposing a full lockdown on Leicester? In an act of sheer lunacy, Matt Hancock announced this morning that non-essential shops have been told to close today and schools asked to shut their doors to the majority of children from Thursday. Pubs, restaurants and hair salons that have been gearing up to re-open on Saturday have now been told to remain closed."
Stereotyping pensioners living in Florida as White Supremacists.
Thinking - not.
I thought the golf cart driving white supremacist was a reference to Trump, who seems to fit all those adjectives.
Though there was literally footage on Twitter at the weekend of some old goon on a golf cart shouting 'White Power' at a demo which Trump rt-ed approvingly, but subsequently deleted. Perhaps the prof was referring to both.
Stereotyping pensioners living in Florida as White Supremacists.
Thinking - not.
I thought the golf cart driving white supremacist was a reference to Trump, who seems to fit all those adjectives.
Though there was literally footage on Twitter at the weekend of some old goon on a golf cart shouting 'White Power' at a demo which Trump rt-ed approvingly, but subsequently deleted. Perhaps the prof was referring to both.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
The number of deaths (from the ONS report today) in the week ending 19th June was 49 in Scotland and 744 in England. That is definitely proportionately more deaths than in Scotland (by about 50%) but the daily reported numbers suggest a much more substantial discrepancy.
Given this, I wonder if the daily deaths being reported by the government are catching up with care home deaths from quite some time ago? The frustration is that the government does not break down non-hospital deaths by date so it's hard to be certain.
It all talks to poor communication of the underlying data. The ONS are great, but the daily stats are really very hard to interpret (and this is in addition to the Pillar I / II issues we've been discussing) and I do wonder if there is a massive catch-up effect in the daily reported figures that's really misleading and exaggerating the difference between Scotland and England, especially in terms of deaths.
I take it you do mean the "English"/UK government when you say 'government'. The reference to ONS rather than NRS pretty much means it can't be the Scottish government.
We did discuss on and off the phenomenon of the Scottosh excess deaths and reported covid deaths being almost exactly the same for months whereas there was a big discrepancy (in April/May, was it not?) in the English figures - about a quarter by eyeballing the graphs. So I suppose these presumably hidden covid deaths could be catching up from that far back. Is it possible it could take so long?
The numbers for Scotland in the ONS report come from the NRS figures, so there is consistency there at least.
But, yes, in terms of daily reporting I'm talking about the daily UK government reported numbers. I think it must be older care home deaths, but why it is taking so long is confusing.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
As far as I am aware, there are four protected constituencies - the two in Scotland, and two on the Isle of Wight. Ynys Môn has certainly not been protected up to now - the latest proposals were to merge it with Bangor.
Has this changed? If so when? It must have been recently.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
I strongly suspect that the biggest factor is that effectively Scotland had an earlier lockdown than some parts of the rest of the UK. Not by date, but by state of the outbreak. Back in March it seemed that a London lock down might happen, as that was the obvious focus at the time. We locked down based primarily on what was happening in London. So for those further behind the curve such as Scotland, and the SW of England say, our effective lockdown date was earlier (in the outbreak). If that makes any sense, This is not to say that by staying stricter, longer and perhaps better trust I government Scotland hasn't added to this, but I don't think the SW of England has more trust in the UK gov, or a 5 mile restriction, but you are hard pressed to find cases down here.
The Prof makes a similar point (if reported only briefly) re timing.
However the comparison doesn't quite take into account different population densities, I think. I was wondering, does the SW include the Bristol/Bath/Clevedon/Avonmouth conurbation? On checking, it does, but that's equivalent population wise only to the eastern part of the Central Belt (basically Edinburgh and the resrt of Lothian). There's nothing in the SW to compare with Greater Glasgow (over a million people). So that's quite a big difference with the SW, even if one matches off Plymouth and Exeter and Taunton with say Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. So maybe the different policies did help.
Northern Ireland is doing better than Scotland or SW England. eg No deaths today, no one in ICU, just one new case
The population density of Northern Ireland is 133 per sq km
The population density of Scotland is 65 per sq km
I think the differences are just down to how deeply a region was seeded, originally, and how connected the region has been, since.
Northern Ireland has the advantage of the Irish Sea, and fewer international air links, so it has done best
Hm. An average popularion density dfoesn't mean much when dealing with the Highlands and Castlemilk all at once - but if one compared NI with say Fife or Angus (one big city and some smaller ones and lots of farms) then your thesis might well hold water.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
With my arrival, there will be a new thread very soon - there always is.
The Economist/YouGov poll for the US Presidential election is one of the largest I've ever seen with 308 pages of crosstabs.
Page 130 is the one of most interest. The headline figure is Biden leading Trump 49-40. Among men Biden is ahead 45-44 and among women by 53-37.
Among White voters Trump leads 48-43 while Biden leads among black voters 75-9 and among Hispanic voters by 56-29.
In the NE Biden leads 59-30, in the West 52-35. In the South Trump leads 46-44 and in the Midwest Biden leads 47-45.
These look much more credible numbers than the USA Today/Suffolk poll of yesterday and for that reason they are much worse for Trump.
Trump won White voters (70% of the vote last time) 58-37 in 2016 so Biden has an 8% swing in that key group. To be fair to Trump, he is doing less badly against black voters and has achieved a small swing (3.5%) among Hispanic voters.
Trump won the Midwest 49-45 in 2016 so that's a 4% swing to Biden and in the South Trump's win was 52-44 so a 3% swing to Biden.
It's hard to see Biden not sweeping the battleground on these numbers. I doubt he'll win Texas or Iowa even on these numbers but everywhere else looks possible which would give Biden at least another 100 EC votes above Clinton which would be enough to win say 320-330 against Trump's 200-220 (roughly) so a comprehensive win if not perhaps the "landslide" some are predicting.
I've not seen the crosstabs for the other two polls released so far today but both are very similar to the Economist/YouGov numbers as far as the headline is concerned.
Stodge,
I quoted you much earlier in the thread. I ripped off something you posted ages ago re defining what you considered a liberal to be. Just thought I should let you know I was plagiarising you.
Of course if it wasn't you I stole the stuff from then just ignore this as drivel.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Comments
You pay $10 to Uber for taking you from A to B. $8.50 of that goes to the driver, $1.50 goes to Uber. If a driver is sitting waiting for a ride, he's not getting paid by Uber.
This isn't Uber buying the time of a bunch of people, and then selling them out, it is simply a driver-customer matching system.
You can see why they don;'t let him do them.
I am not a democrat but I honestly felt sorry for him. I almost pitied him.
I'm sure Smith is wrong, though arguably Spellar's question was badly worded so a bit ambiguous.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/section/11/enacted
As ever, the last 3-5 days are provisional and subject to adjustment later
Looks like the next saw tooth is still down on the previous.
Testing, and track and tracing, is unravelling to be a complete mess, I suspect. Lots of private sector contracts have been given out, including to old favourites like Deloitte, Serco and G4S, and it doesn't look well coordinated. For weeks now the DHSC have been unable to tell us how many people have been tested - this number looks permanently unavailable, rather than temporarily. As Starmer pointed out today, only a relatively small proportion of those testing positive are having their contacts traced. Despite what Johnson says, I don't believe that timely Pillar 4 data has been given to local authorities - it's obviously not just Leicester. And of course there's the mystery of the disappearing app.
I really don't think anybody has much of a clue what's going on with these myriad sources of data. I've spent some time this afternoon trying to find out, and it's like wading through treacle.
The net result is: 1) we don't really know how many are infected, and 2) local public health authorities, best placed to sort things out, don't have the information we need.
Add to that 176 reported deaths today, up from yesterday. Yes, I know most of these were from ages ago - but it does look as if we are much slower than the rest of Europe at getting a grip on the virus.
If the SNP do the same on a weaker/absent mandate then I think the only thing it achieves is the resurrection of Scottish Labour. They can't stand up for Scotland if they don't turn up to vote against the Tories in Westminster.
I can't believe they would be so foolhardy.
https://twitter.com/NathWiddowson/status/1278264759285092352
The political problem for Johnson's government is a perception that they are taking their eye off the virus ball because it's a disagreeable topic for them and they would rather move onto other things. Starmer was quite effective on this today, I think.
They'd arguably be much better off becoming a continuity Cameroon party for socially liberal but economically dry well-to-do voters in Southern England, but that's not where the membership appears to want to go.
Could easily be doctored if you did.
One way of guessing this might be the deaths figure, currently 44k. If the death rate is 1% then that would indicate 4.4m have had it, something like 7%. But if the death rate is 2% then only 3.5% are likely to have had it. Again we really don't seem to know.
The fact that the Italians have found the percentage that is asymptomatic is quite low suggests we are a long way from her immunity however you cut it. Its not good news.
I'm not seeing that flying.
But I do think that there is growing frustration in the Nat camp that they are missing their opportunity, ie, Boris/Brexit, and that as time goes by the SNP will it more difficult to confound political gravity.
In answer to your question - I'm afraid so. Card carrying member in the various incarnations for 50 plus years.
I guess I could best be described as an Orange Booker. I am strongly anti-authoritarianism, jobs worth and political correctness so you could also say I also come from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the party.
I am socially very liberal. I have also been called a lefty by some of our more conservative Conservatives on here, although I suspect my economic views are actually to the right of many of them.
We have often reacted to threads in exactly the same manner on here in the past and 'liked' each others posts quite a few times, so I suspect we have views quite a bit in common.
https://twitter.com/darshnasoni/status/1278363245695266817?s=20
Incredible that 2017 Corbyn result. Will probably look more and more incredible as it fades to grey.
However, it may be significant that Professor Sridhar reckons this is one of the three main reasons Scotland is doing bette rthan England.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18550402.devi-sridhar-explains-what-scotland-got-right-covid-19-fight/
Uber pays bonuses to drivers who do certain things (such as availability, etc.) but the core of the business is a linkage between revenue from a customer and to a driver, with Uber taking a cut.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2247462-scotland-could-eliminate-the-coronavirus-if-it-werent-for-england/
If you consider R&D and Sales&Marketing to be an investment in accruing growth for the future (like Amazon had for many years) then excluding R&D and Sales&Marketing they've made a $1.3 billion net profit. And that's without trimming the admin etc associated with those departments.
While much of that is arguably fair, it doesn't seem capture the innovators (for good or ill) who fall within the Conservative tradition.
Though perhaps they are not conservatives ?
They had 9bn in "Unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments" at end March. They're losing something like 3bn a quarter.
Coronavirus isn't going away any time soon in their main US market or their second largest market, Brazil.
Could all be over by end of the year.
Why is "safe" better than "alert"?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/01/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-shows-positive-results/
...The study randomly assigned 45 patients to get one of three doses of the vaccine or placebo. Twelve received a 10-microgram dose, 12 a 30-microgram dose, 12 a 100-microgram dose, and nine a placebo. The 100-microgram dose caused fevers in half of patients; a second dose was not given at that level.
Following a second injection three weeks later of the other doses, 8.3% of the participants in the 10-microgram group and 75% of those in the 30-microgram group developed fevers. More than 50% of the patients who received one of those doses reported some kind of adverse event, including fever and sleep disturbances. None of these side effects was deemed serious, meaning they did not result in hospitalization or disability and were not life-threatening....
Certainly evokes an immune response.
The lowest dose with follow up booster shot elicited a stronger antibody response than the highest dose.
Link to the preprint:
Phase 1/2 Study to Describe the Safety and Immunogenicity of a COVID-19 RNA Vaccine Candidate (BNT162b1) in Adults 18 to 55 Years of Age: Interim Report
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.30.20142570v1.full.pdf
But I am woke and that's a fact. Not "woke" - woke.
...Our study had several limitations. While we used convalescent sera as a comparator, the kind of immunity (T cells versus B cells or both) and level of immunity needed to protect from COVID- 19 are unknown. Further, this analysis of available data did not assess immune responses or safety beyond 2 weeks after the second dose of vaccine. Both are important to inform the public health use of this vaccine. Follow-up will continue for all participants and will include collection of serious adverse events for 6 months, and COVID-19 infection and multiple additional immunogenicity measurements through up to two years. While our population of healthy adults 55 years of age and younger is appropriate for a Phase 1/2 study, it does not accurately reflect the population at highest risk for COVID-19. Adults 65 years of age and over have already been enrolled in this study and results will be reported as they become available. Later phases of this study will prioritize enrollment of more diverse populations, including those with chronic underlying health conditions and from racial/ethnic groups adversely affected by COVID-19....
I think Sturgeon's / SG's repeated "the virus has not gone away" soundbite is effective, albeit dreary.
Edit@ missing word was I think 'achievable' - as one hopes it is.
Lazy.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.170211116
Clause 7 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill is clear on the mathematical impact of including Ynys Môn as a protected constituency.
The electorate for Wales excludes Ynys Môn (like England excludes the Isle of Wight) and then the number of Welsh seats is calculated per the 2011 amendment to the 1986 Act using the Sainte-Laguë divisor 1/(2x+1).
However the comparison doesn't quite take into account different population densities, I think. I was wondering, does the SW include the Bristol/Bath/Clevedon/Avonmouth conurbation? On checking, it does, but that's equivalent population wise only to the eastern part of the Central Belt (basically Edinburgh and the resrt of Lothian). There's nothing in the SW to compare with Greater Glasgow (over a million people). So that's quite a big difference with the SW, even if one matches off Plymouth and Exeter and Taunton with say Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. So maybe the different policies did help.
Leicester
140.2 / 135.7
Bradford
69.4 / 42.8
Barnsley
54.7 / 34.7
Rochdale
53.6 / 31.4
Oldham
38.6 / 28.4
Blackburn
32.9 / 23.5
Rotherham
33.6 / 22.3
Doncaster
17.4 / 21.9
Bedford
41.9 / 21.6
Bolton
15.8 / 21.4
So not only was Leicester at least double any others it wasn't coming down either as the other high infection areas were.
There may have been 1300 introductions dotted everywhere, but the split in how those developed was obvious on a map and the potential for further outwards spread was always possible. I think it is as strong an explanation as any other.
Btw, Kirklees and Calderdale for these figures, based on home address are
fully separate. For death numbers, which are initially collatefd by hospital.trust, yes, there is common reporting covering Calderdale and slightly over half of Kirklees (the other half reporting mainly into Mid Yorkshire).
https://twitter.com/mikememoli/status/1278372781399441413?s=20
Stocky's description was spot on for me. As you say he is very good at these descriptions isn't he?
I'm trying to think of where we have agreed a lot and I think it has been analysing what we consider some of the flaws in some of the conservative posts on here.
There is also the difficulty in pin pointing liberalism on a straight line that goes from left to right. It doesn't sit on such a straight line. It is not in the middle. The middle is occupied by Social Democrats and they are not liberals (although I feel comfortable with them).
I think some of my views would be considered a long way to the left and some a long way to the right. For instance my views on prostitution, drugs, etc would be considered by conservatives as being way to the left, however I also think the conservatives often interfere far to much in the market place and in peoples lives putting them to the left of me.
The number of deaths (from the ONS report yesterday) in the week ending 19th June was 49 in Scotland and 744 in England. That is definitely proportionately more deaths than in Scotland (by about 50%) but the daily reported numbers suggest a much more substantial discrepancy.
More generally, as you can see from Figure 9 in yesterday's ONS report (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/latest) the number of deaths per day by registration in England is well under 100, as of June 19th, with really very few care homes deaths.
Given this, I wonder if the daily deaths being reported by the government are catching up with care home deaths from quite some time ago? The frustration is that the government does not break down non-hospital deaths by date so it's hard to be certain.
It all talks to poor communication of the underlying data. The ONS are great, but the daily stats are really very hard to interpret (and this is in addition to the Pillar I / II issues we've been discussing) and I do wonder if there is a massive catch-up effect in the daily reported figures that's really misleading and exaggerating the difference between Scotland and England, especially in terms of deaths.
That is, I saw my first Post-Lockdown Parking Ticket Warden today.
Anybody else?
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
Thinking - not.
https://twitter.com/thetimesscot/status/1278367627749003265?s=20
We did discuss on and off the phenomenon of the Scottosh excess deaths and reported covid deaths being almost exactly the same for months whereas there was a big discrepancy (in April/May, was it not?) in the English figures - about a quarter by eyeballing the graphs. So I suppose these presumably hidden covid deaths could be catching up from that far back. Is it possible it could take so long?
With my arrival, there will be a new thread very soon - there always is.
The Economist/YouGov poll for the US Presidential election is one of the largest I've ever seen with 308 pages of crosstabs.
Page 130 is the one of most interest. The headline figure is Biden leading Trump 49-40. Among men Biden is ahead 45-44 and among women by 53-37.
Among White voters Trump leads 48-43 while Biden leads among black voters 75-9 and among Hispanic voters by 56-29.
In the NE Biden leads 59-30, in the West 52-35. In the South Trump leads 46-44 and in the Midwest Biden leads 47-45.
These look much more credible numbers than the USA Today/Suffolk poll of yesterday and for that reason they are much worse for Trump.
Trump won White voters (70% of the vote last time) 58-37 in 2016 so Biden has an 8% swing in that key group. To be fair to Trump, he is doing less badly against black voters and has achieved a small swing (3.5%) among Hispanic voters.
Trump won the Midwest 49-45 in 2016 so that's a 4% swing to Biden and in the South Trump's win was 52-44 so a 3% swing to Biden.
It's hard to see Biden not sweeping the battleground on these numbers. I doubt he'll win Texas or Iowa even on these numbers but everywhere else looks possible which would give Biden at least another 100 EC votes above Clinton which would be enough to win say 320-330 against Trump's 200-220 (roughly) so a comprehensive win if not perhaps the "landslide" some are predicting.
I've not seen the crosstabs for the other two polls released so far today but both are very similar to the Economist/YouGov numbers as far as the headline is concerned.
Has this changed? If so when? It must have been recently.
Edit - here is a statement from three months ago:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-03-24/HCWS183/
https://twitter.com/WorldCOVID19/status/1278346662692433924?s=20
The population density of Northern Ireland is 133 per sq km
The population density of Scotland is 65 per sq km
I think the differences are just down to how deeply a region was seeded, originally, and how connected the region has been, since.
Northern Ireland has the advantage of the Irish Sea, and fewer international air links, so it has done best
"What on earth does the Government think it’s doing? What possible reason is there for reimposing a full lockdown on Leicester? In an act of sheer lunacy, Matt Hancock announced this morning that non-essential shops have been told to close today and schools asked to shut their doors to the majority of children from Thursday. Pubs, restaurants and hair salons that have been gearing up to re-open on Saturday have now been told to remain closed."
https://lockdownsceptics.org
It's the semiotic equivalent of a very short man wearing platform shoes for a date
But, yes, in terms of daily reporting I'm talking about the daily UK government reported numbers. I think it must be older care home deaths, but why it is taking so long is confusing.
I quoted you much earlier in the thread. I ripped off something you posted ages ago re defining what you considered a liberal to be. Just thought I should let you know I was plagiarising you.
Of course if it wasn't you I stole the stuff from then just ignore this as drivel.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.